Should Obama Be Fighting the Last War on Health Care? Or the Next One?

A family of four at $88,000 is far too much of a cut off. EVERYONE should get some assistance including individuals making that amount. The point is that everyone should have a choice between their current health insurance and a public altnernative. In some parts of the country you can make near six figures and still have crappy health insurance.

Actual, I be thinkin’ this be th’ point tha’ cuts t’ th’ chase (fr’m Brooks):
.
“Second, Democrats learned never to go to war against the combined forces of corporate America.”
.
An’ thar be th’ sell-out o’ any sort o’ real health care reform.
.
Sorry, Stuart – I be thinkin’ we be on th’ losin’ side o’ th’ battle.
.
YARR!

It’s also important to remember that a bill–if it passes–is only the beginning of the process. Implementing any kind of far-reaching health reform is going to take years, maybe decades.
.
I don’t think that’s being said anywhere near often enough. If there are problems with the bill that emerges, they can be addressed with additional legislation. Everybody’s acting like this is their only shot and if it isn’t perfect, its a failure.
.

If only we were havin’ a free press (b’sides KT an’ a very few others) tha’ weren’t b’holdin’ t’ th’ same interests th’ congress be, we mi’ be standin’ a chance!
.
Fer instance, we mi’ be hearin’ ’bout who be havin’ a conflict o’ interest drivin’ health care “reform” fr’m th’ pockets o’ th’ health services industry, indeatd o’ an unendin’ cycle o’ celebrity sex an’ death fer “news”!
.
Arrgh!

“instead”.
.
argh.

PD –
.
I be believin’ ye be ri’ ’bout other aspects o’ th’ legislation bein’ addressed later, bu’ if we don’t be gettin’ th’ public option a’ th launchin’, we won’t be gettin’ it a’tall.
.
arrgh!

Cohn and Dionne seem to have the same advice. “Compromise but not too much.”
.
What the Democrats seem to not understand, and we saw this as recently as during the stimulus debate, compromise with people who won’t/can’t budge an inch has little upside other than showing voters you tried to be reasonable.
.
Grassley says he can’t support anything without someone other than Snowe signing on from the republican side so he has political cover.
.
It’s not about policy for Grassley, it’s about political survival.

PNNTO –
.
I don’t even be thinkin’ it be showin’ bein’ reasonable – I be guessin’ most people be thinkin’ it be showin’ th’ democrats be weak an’ ineffectual as they be tarred up t’ be.
.
Hell, I be a democrat, an’ even I be startin’ t’ b’lieve it!
.
It be like havin’ th’ keystone cops in charge.
.
arrgh.

…a’ least th’ repubs were able t’ be makin’ their trains run on time…
.
arrgh.

I don’t see any signs of the Republicans being any more willing to compromise than they have been at any point since January. Unless it is the – do exactly as we want and we will call it compromise.
.
The latest poll indicates that 74% of Republicans favor Obama’s plan to withdraw from Iraq, but I’ll bet we will still hear some weak kneed Democrat wringing hands about it.
.
4.7 million people watched the first hour of the Health Care special on ABC and when it went on after that, the show beat all the late night shows. However, what did I hear on NPR? An interview with a Republican claiming that the librul media was biased and didn’t present their side. Democrats just have to stand up.

I will be right in the $80,000-$100,000 group that will never get any subsidy (heck, we pay the most taxes from what I figure…people that are poorer don’t pay income taxes, and people with more money get a bunch of different tax breaks). I don’t feel particularly resentful that I will miss out on welfare (unlike the true working poor AND the subsidy-sucking insurance companies) because my hopes are:
-That my health care costs will drop partly from not having to pay $1300 a year for the uninsured, from competition put on the death-for-profit firms via a public not-for-profit entity, and from systematic efficiencies like e-records.
-My wife and I won’t feel trapped by “portability” issues (i.e. one of us always having to work for the “man”.
I fully expect to be disappointed.

It may be a valid strategy to get something fairly significant but imperfect up & running, if only to disprove the “sky is falling” Republican claims. Amendments in response to demonstrated, r

Olympia Snowe complained to the AP:
-
“If you establish a public option at the forefront that goes head-to-head and competes with the private health insurance market … the public option will have significant price advantages.”
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/sns-ap-us-obama-health-care-snowe,0,7253018.story
-
Just like a crooked good Republican, it completely goes over Snowe’s head that entire point of this process is that we spend too much on health care and need to save money. “Significant price advantages” are totally contrary to anything the Republicans and the Lieberdems are working for.

It may be a valid strategy to get something fairly significant but imperfect up & running, if only to disprove the “sky is falling” Republican claims. Narrowly targeted amendments in response to demonstrated, rather than predicted and disputed, shortcomings of an existing program are always an available path to improvement.

Meanwhile, it might give a number of senators sufficient time to grow a pair.

Sorry for the double post. Sometimes these things leave the keyboard half-finished, of their own volition. There’s some magic keystroke combination that does almost precisely what I don’t want done.

[...] Karen Tumulty in Swampland rounds up three op-eds. Jonathan Cohn: Bill and Hillary Clinton are off saving the world, he through his global foundation and she via the State Department. But their presence looms over the health care debate as surely as if they were running the White House. Their epic failure to pass reform in 1994 has become the defining object lesson in how to botch health care legislation–a lesson President Obama has obviously taken to heart. Push for reform right away; let Congress hash out the details; and, above all, don’t threaten people’s current insurance arrangements. You can sum up Obama’s strategy for health reform as “WWCD”: What Wouldn’t the Clintons Do. [...]

From pafro’s link-
.
Responding to Snowe’s comments, Schumer spokesman Brian Fallon said the Democrat will continue to seek a consensus with Republicans but believes there must be a public option that “is available to all Americans from the first day.”
.
Now if only Chuck could convince the senior Senator from California.
.
And to be fair Snowe said the public option should be available should the insurance industry not reform.
That’s a bad idea, coming back to this issue later to add a public option would be as difficult if not more difficult than dealing with it now. Also by what matrix do we decide whether the public option is needed “down the road”?
Still she at least gives lip service to the idea rather than shouting about Socialized Medicine.

Insurance reform is a bit like skiing in Sierra Leone. It might be very nice, but would you bet on it happening? The only way health care is going to work is either a strong public plan – which the public would almost certainly find much better than the existing profiteers paradise, or else radical legislation that coerces the insurance industry to a degree previously unimagined. Given how much success financial services reform has enjoyed, I would suggest that the former option is more credible. You’ll have to have a truly vicious fight anyway, so you might as well do the job properly, once and for all. If Obama really works the Democrats, and sells the public plan as he can, we have a decent chance of getting it. If not, it will be knockdown drag out fight time, probably half-assed failure as a result, and a big fat gift to the GOP propaganda machine, plus lots of donations from the medical malefactors.

RE th’ Snowe interview…
.
Don’t employers WANT to be gettin’ rid o’ employer-based health insurance? Be tha’ not a way fer them t’ be cuttin’ costs an’ savin’ money? Why NOT be “underminin” it?
.
An’, wha’ exactly, be workin’ wi’ th’ system we be havin’ t’day, b’sides providin’ lots o’ nice juicy profits fer Premium Collection Corporation shareholders?
.
Arrgh!

Here’s what liberals need to do: STOP LETTING CORPORATE WHORES CO-OPT YOUR AGENDA.
.
My advice to liberals in Congress is to stop fighting the Blue Dogs. Let the Blue Dogs/centrists/corporatists come up with a reform package and make them own it.
.
I’d like to see the health care “reform” they come up with without any pressure from liberals. No single-payer? Fine. No public option? Fine. No mandates? Fine. No serious regulation of insurance companies? Fine.
.
Here’s my bet. After a year or two of reform that doesn’t actually reform anything, the public pressure to pass an actual reform bill will be overwhelming.

“The great paradox of the age is that Barack Obama, the most riveting of recent presidents, is leading us into an era of Congressional dominance. And Congressional governance is a haven for special interest pleading and venal logrolling.
.
When the executive branch is dominant you often get coherent proposals that may not pass. When Congress is dominant, as now, you get politically viable mishmashes that don’t necessarily make sense.”
.
Oh, for Christ’s sake. As if the Bush Administration wasn’t the biggest corporate giveaway of government in a century (KBR/Halliburton anyone?). I believe that they mostly decided how much Wall Street would be regulated while it sucked at Treasury’s teat (how’s that “coherence” working out for you?). And, if I can manage to remember back that far, most of their other policies were about as incoherent as unnecessary disastrous wars based upon already disproved rationales and global economic catastrophe based upon cartoonish socio-economic dogma. Please spare us, if we want David Brooks’ supposed wisdom about government we know where to try to look for it.
.
As it stands, Congress makes the law, regardless of how much of it is written by their corporate owners. So it’s all the same war: the 0.5% power elites against the other 99.5% of us.

square1, it’s impossible to make the Blue Dogs do much of anything, except whine sanctimoniously and preen for the cameras. They specialize in being “moderate” which means that they never have to articulate a coherent position;instead, they just split the difference and call the resulting mess the American way to behave. You might as well try nailing Jello to the wall, as hope that the Blue Dogs will ever be good for anything except seeking out plunder and self-promotion.

OT – th’ EPA were just approvin’ California’s emissions standards – I be hopin’ now th’ other States involved (includin mine) be able to go ahead now wi’ their own, tighter standards, too!
.
A wee victory, bu’ we be havin’ t’ celebrate when we can, me hearties!
.
Arrgh!

State Supreme Court rules for Franken, 5-0
.
http://www.startribune.com/politics/national/senate/49520987.html?elr=KArksLckD8EQDUoaEyqyP4O:DW3ckUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aUac8HEaDiaMDCinchO7DU

Me own advice be, come up wi’ th’ plan – a public option phasin’ in single-payer o’er a few years, an’ sell it hard, sell it clear, sell it loud, an’ stick by it – no f-in’ compromise! If it be goin down in flames, a’ least it be clear who really be on th’ side o’ th’ 99.5%!
.
Since th’ subject o’ breakfast were comin’ up in JNS’ thread, I be sayin’ we ought not t’ be lettin’ congress be makin’ any more waffles!
.

Arrgh!

Paul, Is the Gov going to sign?

Beats me Ivy-he is beholden to the national republican party now.

Well, now that Coleman is toast, Pirate Wench, I think we can safely say that the chances of winning in the Senate have just taken a turn for the butter… I mean better.

Maverick: The “moderate” schtick only works if you let it. Don’t get me wrong. My proposal was a mere fantasy. I don’t have the slighest hope that liberals could pull it off.
.
I would argue, though, that liberals tend to be lousy negotiators. They will always cave.
.
For once, they are in the driver’s seat. But they will still blow it. Obama has staked his first term on delivering health care reform where Bill Clinton could not. OOH, it means he will take single-payer off the table if it helps him pass a bill. And it means that he would sign a bill without a public option if he has to.
.
OTOH, if delivering on liberals’ demands was the only road to success, Obama would bend.
.
Similarly, the Blue Dogs need the liberals for cover. Do Blue Dogs want to sabotage real reform to please their corporate masters? Of course, but they need liberals to sign off on it. The Blue Dogs need faux reform not no reform. The status quo doesn’t help them.
.
Even the GOP wants this issue to go away. Sure, they want to put up a valiant but losing fight in opposition to “Big Government.” But they are better off if something passes that they can whine about for the next half dozen election cycles. It doesn’t help the GOP to have Red State Republicans be grumpy over the health care status quo. They want a system where the insurance companies continue to make profits but the GOP can blame the costs on Obama’s Big Government Socialism.
.
The only group that gains power over time is the liberal wing of the Democratic Party. Personally, I want reform as soon as possible. But I would rather wait a year or two if it meant getting a better plan in place that would be supported by Americans for the next 50 years.

It seems that Sanford is digging himself in deeper…
.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090630/ap_on_re_us/us_sc_governor
.

Somehow I suspect that Jenny Sanford is preparing for a divorce without mercy.

square1, I agree with most of what you say, although I don’t think Obama will be the soft touch that people make him out to be. I suspect he is more strategic and canny than to surrender such a huge winner as the public option, and if he pushes it hard enough, he can force the Blue Dogs into line. He’s being quiet now, but I suspect that once the climate change bill is done we shall see a huge push for the public plan, and much selling of it to the people. This time around the opposition is weaker and less cohesive, and the public are more educated on the issues. It won’t be easy, but it is doable – and more so than climate change policy IMHO.

“Should Obama Be Fighting the Last War on Health Care? Or the Next One?”
_
he should be fighting the CURRENT “war on health care”.
_
and that battle is against the insurance and health care for profit industries that have poured millions upon millions of dollars into lobbying efforts, especially into Max Baucus’s pockets. (Here’s a clue — Baucus had only token opposition during the last election cycle, but he raised over $11 million dollars…. NINETY ONE PERCENT of that money came from OUTSIDE of Montana. That inclues over $1.8 MILLION from the insurance/health industries….
_
http://baltimorechronicle.com/2009/053109Zeese.shtml
_
now, all this is common knowledge — YOU and the rest of the dc journalistic establishment are fully aware of how much cash the anti-reform lobby is throwing around, and who its being thrown to. But rather than report on THAT, you try and pretend that the “devil is in the details” in the Senate Finance Committeee…. its not. The “devil” is the money being accepted by Max Baucus and his cronies…

MSNBC report Al Franken to the Senate.

MAverick:
.
I am done giving the benefit of the doubt to Obama. I judge him on his track record. So far he has shown that he is willing to draw a line in the sand to protect the profits of Goldman Sachs. Other than that, he has proven to be a cautious and entirely establishment center-right politician who is more concerned about getting legislative notches on his belt than the substance of the legislation. He also benefits from being compared to one of the worst Presidents in history.
.
I have no axe to grind against the guy. If he surprises me and delivers more than he has to date, I will be the first to give him credit for it.

Coleman has press conf scheduled for 4:00 ET; Franken at 4:30

“So far he has shown that he is willing to draw a line in the sand to protect the profits of Goldman Sachs. Other than that, he has proven to be a cautious and entirely establishment center-right politician who is more concerned about getting legislative notches on his belt than the substance of the legislation.”
.
I think he’s more concerned about surviving in the center-right Village than any legislative notches at all. Since he has compromised on certain things which should never be compromised, – i.e., government domestic spying and covering-up war crimes – it’s hard to imagine that he’s really a liberal in centrist clothing. But he is quite clearly a political genius at the center of information and power, so who can second-guess what progress is actually possible in our supremely corrupt political culture.
.
When people complain about politicians or government, they often make the mistake of thinking they’re the decision-makers. More likely, it’s the Goldman Sachs’ of the world (or, more precisely, their owners), aided and abetted by our center-right press, who are drawing the line that Obama dare not step over.

Back to health care, Congress dominates at its own peril. There will be elections to face. It beats the Bush era of roll over and sleep for the oligarchy. And nobody has mentioned the ongoing private campaign Obama is waging on the internet to draw people to his side, including with donations. Not sure what the donations are spent on, but the Obama internet presidential campaign is alive and well and steered for the present to health care reform.

Wi thanks t’ wvng regardin’ th’ need fer th’ public option t’ be in place fr’m th’ beginnin’:
.
Public Plan’s Not All That Matters, But It Matters a Lot
.
Arrgh!

Oops:
.
http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2009/06/public-plans-not-all-that-matters-but-it-matters-a-lot.php
.
Thar she be…
.
arrgh!

I think I mi’ be needin’ t’ be movin t’ privcorr:
.
http://privcorr.blogspot.com/
.
I just be sayin…
.
Arrgh!

Josh Marshall had this very good link, I hope that the people of Maine get to see this, and maybe Olympia Snow might change her mind on a public plan.
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/06/healthcare_market_characterized_by_consolidation_n.php
.
Sunday John King showed an add targeting Grassley in Iowa. I only saw part of it and do not know who did it. He will be having town halls this break. I know the farmers and small business owners in my area complain of health care insurance cost. One small business owner had to go to the state pool after his wife had large claims.

pirate wench, from your link: “Things like subsidy levels and eligibility points and the details of benefits packages are the kind of thing that, if health reform passes this year, are bound to get tweaked over and over again in subsequent years. ”
.
Isn’t that the way the income tax code has worked (or not)?

Well, here’s one way to reduce costs:
.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/chi-fri-doctor-shortage-sidebar-jun29,0,1424944.story
.
“As if the Bush Administration wasn’t the biggest corporate giveaway of government in a century (KBR/Halliburton anyone?). I believe that they mostly decided how much Wall Street would be regulated while it sucked at Treasury’s teat (how’s that “coherence” working out for you?).”
.
What a trollish comment.

“And nobody has mentioned the ongoing private campaign Obama is waging on the internet to draw people to his side, including with donations. Not sure what the donations are spent on, but the Obama internet presidential campaign is alive and well and steered for the present to health care reform.”
.
To (very loosely) paraphrase F.D.R., “I’m going to make you make me do it.” Obama knows that only The Beast (mass public demand) can slay The Monster (the money and power of the oligarchs).
—
.

“What a trollish comment.”
.
Coming from you that means, well, absolutely nothing.

http://www.jumpstation.ca/recroom/comedy/python/argument.html

shepherdwong – I have to disagree with you about the merits of passing a bad bill. Look at Medicare Part D, which was a total cave-in to the pharmaceutical lobby. Every Democrat I know favors letting Medicare negotiate with the drug companies for lower prices for seniors. Obama raised this issue several times in his campaign. Have you heard anything about this since November? No!

We need to get it right the first time. Otherwise we’re just throwing MORE money at a bad system. The biggest problem is, fixing such a bloated system will cause a lot of pain to a lot of powerful interests.

Single payer isn’t enough. Medicare pays less than 50% of billed charges, and Medicare is going broke. What’s needed is a change in the way health care is organized and delivered. I really like the HealthPartners model.

http://www.bizjournals.com/twincities/stories/2009/06/29/daily5.html

sw, your comment was off-topic, inflammatory and devoid of argument. How is it not trollish?
.
Guys, I really do want to play well in the sandbox–am I wrong about sw’s comment? I need some education.

And nobody has mentioned the ongoing private campaign Obama is waging on the internet to draw people to his side, including with donations. Not sure what the donations are spent on, but the Obama internet presidential campaign is alive and well and steered for the present to health care reform.
.
Maybe I took the crazy pills today, but since when is soliciting donations a way of drawing people to one’s side? Last time I checked, you get people to join you by giving them something, not by asking for something.
.
Raising the spectre of a grave threat and then asking the base for money is not a new tactic for Democrats. Actually taking steps to stave off the treat is a different matter entirely.

@davethompsonmpls: who said anything about the merits of a bad bill?

“sw, your comment was off-topic, inflammatory and devoid of argument. How is it not trollish?”
.
Actually it was a simple statement of fact that disproved Brooks’ theory quoted above about who does and who doesn’t traffic in “special interests” in government. And given its behavior toward the big banks, that fact is still alive and well during the present Democratic administration. The fact that it pissed you off even though you don’t understand it, tends only to validate the point.

square1, please chill a little. I know of the internet campaign because I was on the mailing list throughout the campaign and donated for the election. The mailings have continued after the election but redirected to causes Obama wants support for.
.
I am not critical, just curious about it. I have never seen anything like it in politics. As for “since when is soliciting donations a way of drawing people to one’s side? Last time I checked, you get people to join you by giving them something, not by asking for something”…I just don’t know what the donations are used for. The President has lobbyists in congress? Just a curiosity to me. No more, no less.
.
Do you really take pills to respond like this? I don’t want to be behind you in the check-out line when you have a problem. That’s just a joke. Forget it.

so, sw, when I do that, I am a troll? I think that your comment was needlessly inflammatory and of very marginal relevance. Brooks was talking more about the difference between special interest favors in legislation where the WH takes the lead and where Congress takes the lead. Not whether there are special favors when the WH doles out goodies.
.
God, for people who think they’re into nuance, you guys miss obvious nuance a lot.

P-Luk’s point about Baucus’ coffers is the only one that matters, period. Until KT and her cohorts in the corp. media lead every story with that, real reform is almost imposs.
~
But this is also true to an extent: “It’s not about policy for Grassley, it’s about political survival.”
~
The kicker is that his survival would be at stake b/c of the false narratives about gov’t his party has been peddling for generations now. Even if he and his suddenly heard the gospels and came to the startling conclusion that, well, the gov’t is designed to serve the people, not the corporations (heresy) I know, he’d be ahead of his electorate. See here for a vivid ex. of leadership ahead of the population:
~
http://www.time.com/time/columnist/frank/article/0,9565,476249,00.html
~
As for: “Here’s my bet. After a year or two of reform that doesn’t actually reform anything, the public pressure to pass an actual reform bill will be overwhelming.”
~
The public may be enraged, but if you’re saying this will lead to a better legislature or greater likelihood of reform, I think you’re unfortunately mistaken. Perhaps a few blue dogs will be replaced by progressives, but by Nov of next year, if the dems haven’t delivered (and they’re holding all the aces), a correction will inevitably narrow their majorities and Obama will soon be riveted by only one thing, Nov 2012.

BTW, KT, am I the first person to note that the banner photo above (lonely Obama) seems a little passe? Horserace ended what, 9 mo’s ago? Though it may churn my entrails daily, throw up Reid & Pelosi, Boner and Mc. This is a politics blog, after all, not a presidential one.

“so, sw, when I do that, I am a troll?”
.
Not to me. And even though you seldom present relevant facts, I think you actually believe the nonsense you spew. I hear it every day from people who think the understand things because Rush Limbaugh told them so, though, I notice from your postings that you have many other sources of disinformation. You are simply indoctrinated, that’s all.
____

“P-Luk’s point about Baucus’ coffers is the only one that matters, period. Until KT and her cohorts in the corp. media lead every story with that, real reform is almost imposs.”
.
Never talk about Fight Club.

KT & Commenters:
.
A) Lovely Bride is back
.
B) There is very little I could add to the excellent commentary on this thread; thanks so much for the great read

Congrats SZ! I felt your pain–as someone who misses his wife when she’s gone overnight, let alone weeks.
~
When you reappear, I’d appreciate your thoughts on this:
~
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20090629_the_truth_alone_will_not_set_you_free/

“When you reappear, I’d appreciate your thoughts on this:”
.
If you’re interested, I’ll tell you what I think. Since I agree with most of it, I’ll tell you where I disagree:
.
“The most important struggle will be to wrest the organs of communication from corporations that use mass media to demonize movements of social change and empower proto-fascist movements such as the Christian right.”
.
This isn’t quite right. It seems that corporations have lost much of the power of the mass media through sheer insularity, hubris and utter disdain for the real job of journalism, as well as the rise of the intertubes and liberals committed to previous journalistic values like importance and truth. The real question is, will they succeed in wresting control of the new mediums for their further propagandistic purposes.
.
Also, the most important struggle is for the enactment of progressive policies which will give lie to right-wing rhetoric and perhaps restore some faith in the electorate that government can be an ally, not just a tool of connected elites. That’s why “conservatives” work so hard trying to prevent liberals from accomplishing anything good for the public at large. Nothing would be more disastrous for the power elites than for average Americans to come to believe in both government and progressive policies.
—
“And because progressives have lost the gift of rhetoric, which was once a staple of a university education, because they naively believe in the Enlightenment ideal that facts alone can move people toward justice, they are largely helpless.”
.
I think this is dead wrong – other than the projected reverence for facts part. Progressives have the compelling rhetoric by far, Hedges sharing his even as he makes this claim. What they lack is much of a voice outside the new media (a couple of hours on MSNBC perhaps) and, unlike the right, much interest, audience or mainstream media cover for telling outright lies to advance an agenda.
.
The problem is that this is actually a basic disadvantage when attempting to advance progressive policies – what progressives do – as opposed to say rhetoric designed for base appeals to a sense of personal grievance, patriotism, jingoism, xenophobia, racism, etc. Rhetoric in support of policy must be intellectually honest and that makes many people feel as though they are being condescended to by people who are smarter than they are (the real reason why some media types personally loathe actual liberals). That’s why “conservatives” have worked so very hard to demonize intellectuals, scientists and empirical knowledge while elevating “common wisdom” to undeserved reverence (just reading Charles Pierces’ Idiot America for a little comic relief on that otherwise depressing fact).

jcapan, I loved the article. It’s always nice to discover that someone has articulated one’s views so well! Seriously, I was recently talking about the parallels between the growth of the internet and the pamphlets (rhetorical) wars of the 16th and 17th centuries. And I absolutely feel that many progressives – actually I’ll use the word “revolutionaries”; I think it better expresses my meaning and why should I reject a little rhetorical grandeur? – are suspicious of rhetoric. I think that may be because there is a perception that rhetoric is the weapon of choice for people who lack evidence to support their arguments: rhetoric begins to imply a lack of evidence.
.
In addition to the obvious consequence of allowing reactionary forces to have a virtual monopoly on good rhetoric, I think this suspicion has the paradoxical effect of making many progressives more vulnerable to rhetoric when it’s less blatant and when it’s filled with words and sentiments that appeal to them. I’m thinking of Obama specifically. He is clearly evidence that progressives haven’t completely rejected rhetoric. OTOH, I was personally shocked by how many supposedly rational evidence-based progressives truly bought into the whole “Change we can believe in” thing and threw out virtually all their critical faculties when evaluating him. And now of course they are confronting reality.
.
This actually supports Hedges’ argument though. Obama was the first person in my lifetime to use first-class rhetoric that specifically appealed to progressives, even those who believed themselves to be revolutionaries. It’s understandable that they were so quick to believe, almost like the radio listeners who believed that Orson Welles’ War of the Worlds broadcast was real. But I hope that Obama’s success will encourage others to embrace rhetoric so we can have rhetorical competitions among progressives, which will develop all of our critical faculties and strengthen the revolutionary rhetoric that competes with reactionary forces.
.
I’ll just end with a standard disclaimer that I don’t want to offend any Obama supporters from the primaries.

“But I hope that Obama’s success will encourage others to embrace rhetoric so we can have rhetorical competitions among progressives, which will develop all of our critical faculties and strengthen the revolutionary rhetoric that competes with reactionary forces.”
.
Do people really believe that?